A new study challenges the prevailing assumption that hatred predominantly underlies affective polarization between ideological groups. The research suggests that disappointment, with its complex mix of positive and negative experiences of the outgroup, better explains the dynamics of intergroup relations. The study highlights the need for a broader exploration of emotions in political conflicts to foster social cohesion.

A new study led by PhD student Mabelle Kretchner from the Department of Psychology at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, under the supervision of Prof. Eran Halperin and in collaboration with Prof. Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler from Reichman University and Dr. Julia Elad-Strenger from Bar Ilan University, is redefining how we understand affective polarization. The study proposes that disappointment, rather than hatred, may be the dominant emotion driving the growing divide between ideological groups.

Affective polarization, characterized by deepening negative feelings between members of opposing ideological groups, is a major concern to democratic stability worldwide. While numerous studies have examined the causes and potential solutions to this phenomenon, the emotional underpinnings of affective polarization have remained poorly understood.

The study addresses a critical gap in current research, which typically relies on one-dimensional measures of affect, that gauges the general positive or negative feelings (ranging from cold to warm) of ideological group members toward their opponents. This traditional approach, according to Kretchner and her colleagues, oversimplifies the complex emotional landscape between ideological group members. Instead, their research advocates for a more nuanced exploration of discrete emotions, emphasizing the role of disappointment.

In particular, we propose that the nature of the ideological relationship is ambivalent and complex, as members of opposing groups simultaneously hold roles as both ideological adversaries and fellow citizens within a common nation and society. As such, we suggest that the emotions underlying ideological conflict should capture this complexity, encompassing both the intense negative experiences of ideological rivalry and the positive regard and expectations from the outgroup to advance and support shared group goals as fellow citizens.

“Disappointment is an emotion that encapsulates both positive and negative experiences,” explains Kretchner. “While hatred is destructive and focuses on viewing the outgroup as fundamentally evil, disappointment reflects a more complex dynamic. It includes unmet expectations and a sense of loss, but also retains a recognition of shared goals and the potential for positive change. This dual nature makes it a more accurate representation of the complexity embedded in ideological intergroup relations.

Across five studies conducted in the US and Israel, disappointment was the only emotion consistently linked to affective polarization, while other negative emotions did not show the same consistent association. Notably, hatred did not predict affective polarization in any of the studies, even during politically charged periods such as the Capitol riots, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the Supreme Court hearings on Roe v. Wade. Mabelle Kretchner noted: “Recognizing disappointment as the key emotion underlying affective polarization, even in challenging times, offers a silver lining: it explains not only the hostility observed between ideological adversaries, particularly as we may feel now during election times, but also the underlying hope that the "appointment" may still take place in the future—that the other side will eventually act in a way that benefits the national common good.”

This finding suggests that interventions aimed at reducing affective polarization might be more effective if they target specific emotions underlying affective polarization like disappointment. “We believe that by understanding the specific emotions that drive polarization, we can develop better strategies to bridge ideological divides,” says Prof. Halperin. “This research opens up new avenues for psychologists and political scientists alike to collaborate on solutions that address the root emotional causes of polarization.”

As societies across the globe grapple with rising political tensions, the insights from this study offer a fresh perspective on how to heal divisions. By recognizing the complexity of emotions like disappointment, this research provides a more comprehensive understanding of the affective forces at play in polarized environments.

The study has already garnered attention in academic circles, and its findings are expected to influence future research and policy-making aimed at reducing ideological polarization.